The "slow and steady wins the race" myth...
Replies
-
If I *had* to lose slowly, I would fail miserably. Takes too damn long. I'm much happier losing a whack fast and maintaining for while, then losing another whack fast, and maintaining for a while, repeat until done.
It's worked for 70 pounds and 2 years, so I'm comfortable I've found my groove.
Like so much else in the human experience - different strokes for different folks.0 -
tagging0
-
I understand that this works for you but I do not think that it is healthy for your body in anyway. I am not sure how old you are but at 51 and recently diagnosed with multiple autoimmune diseases I am sure my yo-yo dieting most of my life and major sun exposure were at least a partial factor that I am now very unhealthy.
I would love to snap my fingers - or wiggle my nose and be at goal weight but if you make small life time changes you can continue for the rest of your life you will not only lose the weight but keep it off because you have made these changes for LIFE.
I wish I would of gotten this concept when I was in my 20s, 30s or even early 40s.
I think the problem is too many people want to lose weight for the wrong reasons " I want to LOOK GOOD now" it gets a lot different when you are losing the weight to try to be Healthier and believe it or not someday will come where your health will be more important than how you look. Doesn't matter how skinny you are when you can hardly get out of bed or go anywhere. When your eyes are swollen and you have big dark purple circles around your eyes and your hands because your immune system is attacking you. When it is hard to take in air because your lungs hurt so bad.
There is no guarantee that if you eat healthy and exercise on a regular basis that you will still not get sick with an autoimmune disease, cancer or something else but I think it is wise to be kind to your body and I believe it will reduce the risk of getting any of these disease and any way to reduce the risk is SO WORTH IT!0 -
Thanks everyone for the thoughts. This has been on my mind for quite awhile.
As someone who lost some slow, and regained fast, and has lost a lot fast, and maintained for years, it's always thrown me for a loop this insistence that slower losers somehow had an advantage. I've done both and seen no advantage to taking the slow route.
But someone earlier made an excellent point in regards to the transition from loss to maintenance. Yes, I do believe we all have a higher chance at maintaining fat loss if we're able to undertake a sustainable maintenance journey. Now what each of us considers sustainable obviously varies wildly.
And to the other poster, I concur; not nearly enough of these studies cover weight loss vs fat loss, and the impact on an increased higher LBM.
As others have said, I don't think it's a 'myth' insomuch as the often touted 'right' way to do it. Which is false. The 'right' way to do it for you is to do what works for you.
Must say, I'm a career lifestyle changer
And I've always taken the sensible approach, lost slowly, subscribed to starvation mode, yadda yadda. Here I am, starting back at 311lbs. (actually I'm back down to 295, woohoo! not even 3 weeks in)
So my conclusion is, there is no magic formula. I'm trying the lose fast route now, because I never have before, and I feel like the one thing that starting out so large affords me is the ability to lose fast in the beginning. I can cut far more calories at this stage then I will be able to at 200lbs.
I've been fasting 2 days a week, and eating 1800 to 2200 cals the other 5 days. I'm cutting a couple hundred calories each week. We eat healthy, nutritious food with a few treats thrown in to keep it interesting. Tonight is steak tips in gravy over brown rice with spinach salad, and a homemade angel food cake for dessert.
Will this help me keep it off at the end of my journey? I dunno. But I do know with this approach I may actually, for the first time ever, SEE the end of my journey :P0 -
This is a great answer and spot on!0
-
Everyone is different ...
But for me... I have been steadily losing 1-2 lbs per month and I feel like I am already on maintenance even though I still have 25-30 lbs to go to get where I want to be body fat wise.
Here is my opinion (and my opinion only) why I think "slow and steady" makes sense ( I am not going to apologize for my stance):
1. If you eat a small deficit every day it means that you have enough fuel to exercise.
2. If you try to lose eating very low calories and exercise a lot you will always be "hangry" - hungry+angry. (I am talking about that I used to net 400-600 per day - it was an ugly situation)
3. Psychologically you can accept every weight "stage" and body "stage"
4. If you know that you are going to lose slowly, it means that you are less likely to have that mindset that you have to deprive yourself of certain foods. You can eat nearly "normally" all the time - you just have to be mindful that you eat less than you burn. ( I eat pizza at least 4 times a week)
I will "put my money" where my mouth is....
I will put this post in my blog and then reply to This link 3 months from now.0 -
Thanks everyone for the thoughts. This has been on my mind for quite awhile.
As someone who lost some slow, and regained fast, and has lost a lot fast, and maintained for years, it's always thrown me for a loop this insistence that slower losers somehow had an advantage. I've done both and seen no advantage to taking the slow route.
But someone earlier made an excellent point in regards to the transition from loss to maintenance. Yes, I do believe we all have a higher chance at maintaining fat loss if we're able to undertake a sustainable maintenance journey. Now what each of us considers sustainable obviously varies wildly.
And to the other poster, I concur; not nearly enough of these studies cover weight loss vs fat loss, and the impact on an increased higher LBM.
I think that those who figure out what works for them have the advantage.
The only way I'm losing weight fast is if I lose a couple of limbs, and I think I'll pass on that. So I can either get frustrated by some study that says fast is better, embrace a study that says slow is better, or I can just keep doing what I can to move in the right direction and not worry too much about what others are doing.0 -
Thanks everyone for the thoughts. This has been on my mind for quite awhile.
As someone who lost some slow, and regained fast, and has lost a lot fast, and maintained for years, it's always thrown me for a loop this insistence that slower losers somehow had an advantage. I've done both and seen no advantage to taking the slow route.
But someone earlier made an excellent point in regards to the transition from loss to maintenance. Yes, I do believe we all have a higher chance at maintaining fat loss if we're able to undertake a sustainable maintenance journey. Now what each of us considers sustainable obviously varies wildly.
And to the other poster, I concur; not nearly enough of these studies cover weight loss vs fat loss, and the impact on an increased higher LBM.
I think that those who figure out what works for them have the advantage.
The only way I'm losing weight fast is if I lose a couple of limbs, and I think I'll pass on that. So I can either get frustrated by some study that says fast is better, embrace a study that says slow is better, or I can just keep doing what I can to move in the right direction and not worry too much about what others are doing.
Great response and great approach! Obtain knowledge, get different perspectives, then apply whatever works best for you and work toward your goals!0 -
as i lose so slowly... I'm getting tired of doing this .."this way" ..and now prefer if I could jus tlose it more quickly. I agree with the OP. I think losing it so slow makes you want to give up.0
-
Ok...
The weight loss categories of Fast, Moderate and Slow should be held in context within a person's baseline weight and degree of adiposity. I would not consider a mean total loss of 29.7 lbs after 6 months in individuals having a mean baseline weight of 212 lbs to be fast based on their likely degree of adiposity. For these women ranging between 180 to 245 lbs, many probably stood to lose 50 to 100+ lbs, total, depending on height and build. Thus, within this context, a 1.5 lb (or even 2.0 lb for some) initial weight loss per week is not rapid by any means nor would I expect any significant physiological adaptations as a result during restriction or post-maintenance.0 -
The study design is interesting...
Phase 2: "All participants were encouraged to maintain the new eating and exercise habits learned during the Phase I intervention."
Phase 1: "All participants were encouraged to consume 1,200 kcal/day and to increase physical activity to reach a 10,000/day step average or attain at least 3,000 steps greater than baseline levels."0 -
I'm no expert but imo its bs.
I have lost 4 stone in 2 months before and i never gained it back.
My sisters lost 6 stones slowly over 2 years and gain half a stone to a stone within a weekend if they go out for the night.
okay, I just like to point out that your poor sister is very very unlikely to have gained half a stone of fat in a weekend. Half a stone is 7lbs, so that would mean that she'd consume an extra 24500 calories over her TDEE and whilst that is probably doable with some effort, it's likely to have been mostly water (especially if she had a lot of sodium) and biomass.0 -
The study design is interesting...
Phase 2: "All participants were encouraged to maintain the new eating and exercise habits learned during the Phase I intervention."
Phase 1: "All participants were encouraged to consume 1,200 kcal/day and to increase physical activity to reach a 10,000/day step average or attain at least 3,000 steps greater than baseline levels."
with 1200 cals a day I am not surprised that they regained the weight unless they were all pretty short and inactive0 -
I was one of those ppl that didn't have a healthy relationship with food when I joined. I thought the faster I was losing the better... I had lost about 17 lbs or so in a month by barely eating & working out like crazy. I was doing it MY way & nobody could tell me what I should be doing! Well, after being on MFP for awhile & seeing how the ppl that did it slowly looked in their pics (Amazing!) I realized I had lost a LOT of my LBM. Even though I'm thinner I still look pudgy! That's what changed my mind about the way I was going about weight loss. Now I'm more worried about feeling better & shaping my body. Just a cpl months ago I wouldn't have ever thought I'd say this but for me, slow & steady WINS!!! & I thank the awesome members of MFP!
yay!0 -
The regain was kept minimum in all groups if they were instructed to eat just 1200 during the one year maintenance. If that's the case, the study is very flawed - they should have been told to eat up to their hypothetical adjusted TDEE.with 1200 cals a day I am not surprised that they regained the weight unless they were all pretty short and inactive0 -
The study design is interesting...
Phase 2: "All participants were encouraged to maintain the new eating and exercise habits learned during the Phase I intervention."
Phase 1: "All participants were encouraged to consume 1,200 kcal/day and to increase physical activity to reach a 10,000/day step average or attain at least 3,000 steps greater than baseline levels."
I don't think "encouraged to maintain the new eating...habits" means they were encouraged to continue eating the same amount. They were also receiving counseling so I assume they were getting nutritional advice. Common sense would suggest they were counseled on appropriate calorie intake for maintenance and were encouraged not to fall back into their old habits, as many on this thread have mentioned is easy to do. Obviously, the calorie intake of the participants was not tracked in phase 2, but that would be interesting to know.0 -
Let me get this straight, because I think it might be important. Please let me know if I've misread the study.
All the women were put on a 1200 calorie diet for one month. After one month they were weighed, and depending on that result, they were put in the fast, medium or slow group - is that right? In other words, they weren't randomly assigned to a group. The people in the fast group were presumably "better" at sticking to that low-calorie diet, or they were losing weight more quickly for some other reason.
During this period there weren't actually vast differences in calorie intake between the groups. (1366, 1387 and 1486 for fast, medium and slow). We're not looking at the difference between, say, 1200 calories and 2000 calories.
The fast group had better attendance and adherence - maybe THAT was the important factor (people who complied with some of the aspects of the diet, such as weigh-ins, were more likely to comply with other aspects, etc. - the speed might just be another measure of level of compliance). The study seems to be saying that people who lose weight more quickly are more likely to comply, but why shouldn't it be the other way around?
What do you think?0 -
After reading the article:
"There are three potential limitations to the present study. First, this study used a correlational design and thus cannot directly assess causality. This post-hoc separation of groups according to initial rate of weight loss did not account for underlying physiology or behaviors that may have self-selected participants into each group and determined long-term outcomes. Future studies employing a prospective, randomized design to assign participants to the FAST, MODERATE, and SLOW weight loss categories are necessary to validate our findings regarding initial rate of weight loss. "
I would strongly suspect that the self-selection had a lot more to do with it than anything else.0 -
In my opinion, I think its an excuse for people that dont want to put the extra effort into serious exercise routine. I have a few friends that are somewhat lazy where they only want to put 30 min a few days a week of exercise, they "could" make time for an hour, or mabe even 5 days a week, but they are happy taking the "slow and steady" approach. So lets justify it by adding that its easier to keep the weight off if you take it "easy" Is complete garbage.
I did absolutely no exercise while actively losing weight and I lost the weight fast. Being 'lazy' worked brilliantly for me :drinker:0 -
I have lost 23 lbs. since January. I spin 3 - 4 times a week, boot camp - once a week and personal training - once a week. I use MFP to monitor my caloric intake. I eat back many of the calories I burn. Do I feel like I am on a "diet" or that I am depriving myself of anything....the answer is NO...because I really don't. If I want something to eat....most generally I eat it. I just do my best to stay within my allotted calories. Losing weight slowly has worked for me. I am not in a contest with anyone but myself. I chose to make more of a lifestyle change (exercise.....period....and keep track of the calories I intake) than a short-term change to lose my weight. That's what I prefer....and what I can stick to. It has worked for me. I know others who run every day, spin, strength train, etc. and watch what they eat...I mean the WATCH WHAT THEY EAT. Every single morsel. That is WONDERFUL that it works for them...and I commend them for that. I am just not that kind of gal....I like my food.
0 -
After reading the article:
"There are three potential limitations to the present study. First, this study used a correlational design and thus cannot directly assess causality. This post-hoc separation of groups according to initial rate of weight loss did not account for underlying physiology or behaviors that may have self-selected participants into each group and determined long-term outcomes. Future studies employing a prospective, randomized design to assign participants to the FAST, MODERATE, and SLOW weight loss categories are necessary to validate our findings regarding initial rate of weight loss. "
I would strongly suspect that the self-selection had a lot more to do with it than anything else.
More to do with what? This is the take-home point for me (from the conclusion):
"Fast weight losers . . . were not more susceptible to weight regain than gradual weight losers."
I don't think self-selection is a confounding issue here since the weight re-gain was similar among the 3 groups. In some ways it more closely resembles real-world situations in which people do self-select their rate of loss to a large degree. This was a fairly loose study though, I agree.0 -
Let me get this straight, because I think it might be important. Please let me know if I've misread the study.
All the women were put on a 1200 calorie diet for one month. After one month they were weighed, and depending on that result, they were put in the fast, medium or slow group - is that right? In other words, they weren't randomly assigned to a group. The people in the fast group were presumably "better" at sticking to that low-calorie diet, or they were losing weight more quickly for some other reason.
During this period there weren't actually vast differences in calorie intake between the groups. (1366, 1387 and 1486 for fast, medium and slow). We're not looking at the difference between, say, 1200 calories and 2000 calories.
The fast group had better attendance and adherence - maybe THAT was the important factor (people who complied with some of the aspects of the diet, such as weigh-ins, were more likely to comply with other aspects, etc. - the speed might just be another measure of level of compliance). The study seems to be saying that people who lose weight more quickly are more likely to comply, but why shouldn't it be the other way around?
What do you think?
I agree, I think their 3rd conclusion (that the fast and moderate groups were more likely to achieve successful weight loss and maintenance, presumably because of the initial rate of weight loss) is questionable for the reasons you say. I think this is what they were referring to in the limitations of the study where they say causation is not shown.
I have less trouble with the other 2 conclusions -- that the initial rate of loss was directly related to the amount lost at 6 months and that the amount regained between the groups was similar (although I'm still a little confused over the stats on that last point).
I love discussing studies. This has got me thinking about starting a group for it...0 -
More to do with what? This is the take-home point for me (from the conclusion):
"Fast weight losers . . . were not more susceptible to weight regain than gradual weight losers."
I don't think self-selection is a confounding issue here since the weight re-gain was similar among the 3 groups. In some ways it more closely resembles real-world situations in which people do self-select their rate of loss to a large degree. This was a fairly loose study though, I agree.
I think that the self-selection is a confounding issue because the people who lost fast were more likely to adhere to the prescribed diet. The prescribed diet and exercise routine should have resulted in 'fast' weight loss among all of the above.
Of course initial amount lost will be directly related to amount lost at 6 months -- that's too short a time period. But it makes total sense to me that being more likely to actually stick to it in the first place would mitigate the effect that other studies have found where rapid weight loss meant a more likely regain.
Quite honestly, this study doesn't seem to be very useful other than showing yet again that damn near everyone regains.0 -
More to do with what? This is the take-home point for me (from the conclusion):
"Fast weight losers . . . were not more susceptible to weight regain than gradual weight losers."
I don't think self-selection is a confounding issue here since the weight re-gain was similar among the 3 groups. In some ways it more closely resembles real-world situations in which people do self-select their rate of loss to a large degree. This was a fairly loose study though, I agree.
I think that the self-selection is a confounding issue because the people who lost fast were more likely to adhere to the prescribed diet. The prescribed diet and exercise routine should have resulted in 'fast' weight loss among all of the above.
Of course initial amount lost will be directly related to amount lost at 6 months -- that's too short a time period. But it makes total sense to me that being more likely to actually stick to it in the first place would mitigate the effect that other studies have found where rapid weight loss meant a more likely regain.
Quite honestly, this study doesn't seem to be very useful other than showing yet again that damn near everyone regains.
I agree. I think that last point is what the OP was trying to get across with this thread.0 -
if you move from "dieting" to "maintenance" in a responsible manner...
That's the key phrase. The question comes down to...is there any tangible evidence that slow-and-steady results in increased "responsible" behaviour post-diet. I don't know of any.
And curiously, the fittest humans alive (our professional athletes) are notorious for dropping and adding weight quickly.
Professional athletes may be at current peak physical performance, but that does not necessarily mean they are the HEALTHIEST individials alive. There is a reason why pro athletes have relatively short careers and often suffer health problems later in life, particularly female athletes like gymnasts and dancers, who can suffer a lifetime of hormonal and muscular/skeletal issues after retiring in their mid to late 20s.0 -
Let me get this straight, because I think it might be important. Please let me know if I've misread the study.
All the women were put on a 1200 calorie diet for one month. After one month they were weighed, and depending on that result, they were put in the fast, medium or slow group - is that right? In other words, they weren't randomly assigned to a group. The people in the fast group were presumably "better" at sticking to that low-calorie diet, or they were losing weight more quickly for some other reason.
During this period there weren't actually vast differences in calorie intake between the groups. (1366, 1387 and 1486 for fast, medium and slow). We're not looking at the difference between, say, 1200 calories and 2000 calories.
The fast group had better attendance and adherence - maybe THAT was the important factor (people who complied with some of the aspects of the diet, such as weigh-ins, were more likely to comply with other aspects, etc. - the speed might just be another measure of level of compliance). The study seems to be saying that people who lose weight more quickly are more likely to comply, but why shouldn't it be the other way around?
What do you think?
I agree, I think their 3rd conclusion (that the fast and moderate groups were more likely to achieve successful weight loss and maintenance, presumably because of the initial rate of weight loss) is questionable for the reasons you say. I think this is what they were referring to in the limitations of the study where they say causation is not shown.
I have less trouble with the other 2 conclusions -- that the initial rate of loss was directly related to the amount lost at 6 months and that the amount regained between the groups was similar (although I'm still a little confused over the stats on that last point).
I love discussing studies. This has got me thinking about starting a group for it...
I'm confused about the stats too. The study says that the fast group regained the same amount as the slow group, but the figures seem to say that they regained twice as much (2.6kg compared to 1.3kg).0 -
I'm confused about the stats too. The study says that the fast group regained the same amount as the slow group, but the figures seem to say that they regained twice as much (2.6kg compared to 1.3kg).
Yes, they say the difference between 2.6kg and 1.3kg wasn't statistically significant but I am unsure what statistics they used to determine that. The fast group also lost more so if you look at the graph it looks like a fairly comprable amount of regain compared to what they lost.0 -
I think you all discussing this is perfect example of why even studies and conclusions can't be taken at face value.
You starting digging in to why participants are selected, and how that is different from average real life, or real life for you right now.
You notice many points not mentioned that just begs questions with no answers, if the researchers even thought about it.
You notice conclusions drawn that makes you wonder what other data was available, because you don't see the same thing.
And you notice how could that conclusion me maintained over a different time period. At least this was a year study, some of the shorter 6 week ones are interesting results too ("let's see, 2 lb difference after 6 weeks not significant, but what happens after 4 months, significant then if same direction continued" as example on other study).
I think many researchers are just like normal folks on their jobs. They think they know enough to answer all the questions and cover all the angles, so they never ask for other input, and only discover after the fact they either guessed something wrong or didn't even take in to account something they didn't think about.
Like in this study of rural women - I'm guessing there are families there too. How much assistance from the family to stick to it. Thinking traditional fair for rural families, perhaps farm-based eating, where their desires overwhelming and against the nutritional advice. Think of how hard many on MFP have sticking to what they want to stick to, with other family desires. These women weren't tracking on something that held them accountable and made it easier.0 -
Think of how hard many on MFP have sticking to what they want to stick to, with other family desires. These women weren't tracking on something that held them accountable and made it easier.
So, in conclusion, any failure on their part, is due to the fact that they weren't on MFP.
0 -
I lost a bunch of weight, super fast. I heard the loud chorus of how I was going to:
1) Lose Muscle Mass - Didn't
2) Go Bald - Still Hairy
3) Destroy my brain - Did that years ago
4) Stall my metabolism - Nope
5) Kill my gall bladder - Still have that too.
On the flip side, while I did drop a 100 pounds last summer, I cannot continue at that rate. It's just not reasonable to believe that I will live on a heavily restricted diet and get in two grueling workouts every day. For the last month I've been eating what I want (within reason) and keeping under or at 2,000 calories. Still losing weight, but it's slower (2 lbs a week). I can do this forever though.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 423 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions